Since this is an open thread, I'd love to discuss the style vs. substance issue. This is one of the few areas where I tend to disagree with Matt and some of the other hosts.I've heard it said that it shouldn't matter what a person looks like, how attractive they are, how they are dressed, or what their credentials may be. Their arguments should stand on their own merits.I agree that it shouldn't matter, but unfortunately, it does.We live in a world where people see advertisements hundreds of times each day. "Consumers" are bombarded with brands and images airbrushed into perfection and conformity. People generally trust messages that are delivered in a clean and professional package.I would contend that the Atheist "brand," to the extent that there is one, has a bit of a problem. Prominent atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens are considered to be "dicks" by most theists. Worse yet, atheists, as an extremely loosely organized group of individuals, have to compete with highly-organized marketing and PR of religious organizations. Theists are able to spend vast amounts of money on TV stations, websites, books, pamphlets, etc.I was a doubter for a long time, but part of what kept me away from the atheist label was the idea that atheists were all a bunch of immoral misanthropes who wanted an easy excuse to do whatever they wanted without any ultimate consequence. I never realized that atheism was the more defensible moral position until I started watching the Atheist Experience regularly. It was the first place that I had ever seen an atheist message delivered in such a positive way. Despite operating with limited resources, the show has been able to elevate some bright and eloquent people to prominence on YouTube and within the global atheist community.I understand that the purpose of the show isn't necessarily to win converts. Nevertheless, I think any message that you put out there is likely to be better-received if it is presented in a nice package. The more professional you can make the show, the website, and the blog, the more that the average person out there is likely to take you seriously and listen to you. It's not fair, but that's reality.P.S. That's a lovely dress.

Matt, speaking as a Transgender person, I have to tell you, you look surprisingly passable. Oddly enough, your size is a help, not a hindrance, as for a smaller framed man, it's usually more obvious that his body lacks the right proportions. You did a great job, for a great cause, and more importantly, did it without indignity toward the TG community. Thank you for that.

It took me a little while to figure out why this looks so horrible, so… horrifying! It is like a Lovecraftian nightmare! Anyhoo, I figured it out. Matt, you shaved your FACE!!!!! With all the wig/makeup/women's clothing stuff, the lack of facial hair wasn't immediately obvious but was nagging at my subconscious. Yikes, don't do this again!

MY GOD WHAT HAVE WE DONE?! By the way, my hypo-thesis is that Charlie would totally hit Matt. After all, Matt is not a gay man, so he doesn't provoke disgust and doesn't carry nasty diseases like The Gayness or The Cooties, right? So it's all well!

If Matt had kept the goatee and done everything else it wouldn't be as much of a shock, but facial hair makes a HUGE difference in your look. Matt looks like a completely different person. It's good he didn't half-ass it.

When I was watching the show one the internet and it was all choppy, and It was hard to see who was talking. and i kept hearing Matts voice but I didn't see him..just that guy and some new chick in red hair lol..and I heard him say "in drag" and thats when I realized that was him lol..good job I really though You were a girl Matt.Steven

The way you treated Charlie, immediately hanging up on him, I was so happy no time was lost with him. All the points that had to be made about him are already made and there will always be a disagreement (he is a horrible person when it comes to human sexuality), so let him go.

Great job both on the look and sticking with your premise of arguments standing for themselves.Speaking of arguments, I just wanted to point out in your brief discussion of the social evolution of gender… Even if you take the postulate that gender rolls evolved and therefore have some functional value, you also must point out that gender diversity ALSO evolved and therefore has some functional value.Just had to toss that in.

Yeah, I was poking around in the blog's template to see why the sharing buttons weren't showing up. They are now — check the top of this post to see quick links to share posts on Facebook, Google+, Twitter, etc. — and I also decided this background looked neat while I was at it.

I have to say I think Matilda looks good.Agreed. Although… is it sexist that when Matt's dressed like a woman we all start talking about his looks instead of his intellect and start making unsolicited sexual advances? Or appropriately ironic, or what?

Nicely done, Matt! You clearly put a lot of effort into it and it shows. I admire your dedication to the whole donation bribe! No one really asked you to take it this far and it's really cool how you turned this into another learning experience rather than just a goof.@Dorkman, you mean, is it sexist how when Matt dresses like a woman posters start making rape jokes about him, like "busting down back doors" and so forth?a) yes.b) it's also really creepy.c) just because it's a joke does not make points (a) and (b) untrue.

@OnlyWhatIKnow: Largely what you're talking about is ethos, one of Aristotle's modes of persuasion, alongside pathos and logos. The way I typically put the notion is that pathos (emotional appeals) is why you should care, ethos (personal appeals) is why you should trust me, and logos (logical/evidentiary appeals) is why I'm right. Atheists and skeptics tend to focus mostly on the logos in persuasive arguments, because that's all that matters in science and logical debate. In actual persuasion, the other two are at least as important, something I've harped on myself. While we're often willing to use harsh, evocative language to score pathos points (see: any time we talk about genital mutilation or the multitudes killed by anti-vax nutters), appeals to ethos often seem too close to arguments from authority for skeptical-minded people to be comfortable with. We're generally okay with oppositional ethical appeals (Kevin Trudeau is a noted fraud, Jenny McCarthy has no medical qualifications, Ben Stein is an unrepentant liar, etc.), but not so much with the positive ones. Part of that is the very deficit you note: atheists have a bad reputation. A big part of accommodationist positions seems to be that atheists need to keep quiet and stay hidden so we don't scare away potential religious allies–the implication being that we don't want them to realize that things like evolution and Big Bang cosmology are consistent with–or perhaps even potential causes of–atheism. Heaven forbid.

But while the "dick" thing gets thrown around a lot, the truth seems to be that, to our opponents, tone doesn't really matter. Take a look at the fundie attacks on Hemant Mehta (preceding his more recent slide away from out-and-out "friendliness"), the IDiots' general hatred and rancor for soft-spoken Eugenie Scott, or the vandals and protestors up in arms over billboards saying "Millions are good without god" or "Don't believe in god? You're not alone" or "There is probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." These are not harsh, strident, rude, in-your-face, dickish messages. They are about as soft-spoken as you can get. Even Richard Dawkins isn't the shrieking frothy-mouthed rottweiler that the religious right would portray him as. What's "dickish" to the believers is not any subtlety of tone; it doesn't matter how softly we speak or how many qualifiers we put on our statements, the "dickish" part is that we would dare to speak out, to dissent, to voice doubt at all. The dickishness is in prodding the bubble of privilege that a majority-theist and majority-Christian society has allowed them to inhabit for their entire lives. That we exist is, in and of itself, a threat to their beliefs. That we speak up and speak out against those beliefs is an unacceptable assault. The solution is to speak up and speak out and openly exist in greater numbers, with greater visibility. The more of us there are, the more of us who are friends and neighbors and celebrities to theists, the less tenable the "atheists are immoral hedonists who defy god so they can sin freely" claim becomes, the more clearly absurd it appears. It's the same as it has been for the GLBT community. The younger generations of Christians are much more welcoming of gays, in part because they know gay people, and can see that they don't fit the "sinful predator looking to convert others" stereotype spewed from the pulpit. Getting to that point required not just your clean-cut professional neighbor and his equally clean-cut life partner, but also the flamboyant drag queens in sequined banana-hammocks who challenged heteronormative privilege and showed people that they could be as gay as they wanted without fear. Getting to that point will require similar campaigns. We need to come out as neighbors and friends as other normal people. But we also need our drag queens.

My first reaction when I saw the still frame of the show my first thought was: "huh, where is Matt, I thought he was going to be in drag; I only see Jeff D and a woman I don't recognise… oh" then it dawned on me. Well done.

I also want to voice my annoyance over ill-prepared and annoying callers, and I'm not talking about charlie.Like, one guy, like, kept saying "like", like, every few words. And it's like, annoying.Another guy had "quick questions" that took about 5 minutes of explanation before asking. Not so quick. And he was clueless about muting the stream while calling in.I really wish callers were more prepared when calling in. I get it that they may be nervous or excited, but a little preparation of what you plan on saying/asking would probably cut calls down a bit on their length, make for more productive communication, and provide people like me less to whine about on a blog.

@Ian Andreas Miller: *Brohoof*Not bad matt, you got me confounded for a couple of seconds (mostly because of the redhead wig and the absence of facial hair). Episode itself was dragging a bit, har har. Too many atheist callers in my opinion, and they went on for faaaaaar too long to remain interesting. Still, i'll come back and watch it again in a week or so, as i do with every show.

Does anyone know how to DL from blip.tv anymore?Used to be they had a Files section where you could dl in flv, mp4 or wmv (not sure when they redesigned their site since I only listened to the mp3 for the last couple episodes, and I can't find it now)lol, my captcha word was "Manish" (before I hit edit, anyway)

Matt – as a transgender. Thank you so much for not making a huge joke out of this. Transphobia is a common and sad thing, and I'm glad that you didn't turn what is often, for some, a very real thing into a joke.And you didn't look half bad.

I think Matt, could record himself, in that awesome outifit singing something like, "Garota de Ipanema", to raise funds for the ACA…but thats just an idea…even if Matt is a great crossdresser, i can tell that he is a terrible singer XD.